Independent Decision Assessment
An independent, evidence-based view of whether a significant AI decision is ready before you commit.
A significant AI decision deserves more than a decision paper
We read the documents behind each approval, not just the summaries prepared for the board.
Why it matters
By the time a significant AI decision reaches the board or investment committee, every team has usually signed off on its part. Model Risk has confirmed the model works. Risk is comfortable with the risks that remain. Compliance has no objection. Finance has accepted the financial projections.
Each team may have done its part well. What often isn’t checked is how the parts fit together.
The question is not only whether the technology works. It is whether every team signing off on its part is enough to say yes.
THE ASSESSMENT
Is the evidence behind a significant AI decision enough to go ahead?
We look at the decision, the evidence behind each sign-off, the conclusions of Model Risk, Risk, Technology, Compliance and the business, and the assumptions that link them.
What you receive: a written finding.
A typical assessment takes three to five weeks.
HOW THE ASSESSMENT WORKS
We start with the decision and the evidence behind it. We read the documents behind each approval, not just the summaries, and talk to the people involved.
We then check the assumptions that link one team's conclusions to another's, and who answers for each part. The depth of the work matches the size of the decision and what is at stake.
ORBIT is the method behind it. It does not replace the work of Model Risk, Risk, Technology, Compliance or the business, and it does not re-check it. It asks whether their conclusions, taken together, support the decision.
What the assesment looks at
The decision: What is being decided, and what is the organization committing to?
The evidence: What does each sign-off rest on, and what does it actually show?
The assumptions between teams: What is being assumed that could change the outcome?
Who answers for it: How do the teams' conclusions fit together and who answers for the decision?
What is still open: What gaps, conditions or uncertainties remain before you commit?
What you receive
A written finding on whether the evidence is enough to support the decision.
It sets out:
✓ The decision and what is being committed
✓ We go through the documents behind each approval
✓ The teams' conclusions we considered
✓ The assumptions we checked
✓ Open issues and conditions, each with an owner and a date
✓ The basis for the finding
The finding is one of three:
· Ready: The evidence supports the decision as proposed.
· Ready with conditions: The decision can go ahead once named conditions are met.
· Not yet ready: An important assumption has no evidence, or no one responsible for it.
A clean Ready is a legitimate outcome. The finding says whether the evidence is enough to support the decision. It is not a guarantee of implementation success or future business performance.
When it helps
When a significant AI decision is coming to the board or investors, and you want to know if it is properly supported before you go ahead.
For example, when:
• the evidence comes from several teams and no one has looked at it as a whole
• the system will act, not only advise
• a supplier or head-office technology team is leading the proposal
• the board or investors want an outside view before committing
It is not there to check whether any team is doing its job. It asks whether their evidence, taken together, is enough for this decision.
After the assessment
The assessment says whether the evidence supports the decision.
What happens next is a separate question.
Putting the decision into practice, redesigning the work and tracking the results stau with your organization and the partners you choose.
Stenson Global does not take on implementation or advisory work on a decision it has assessed.
Independent by design
For any one decision, Stenson Global advises or assesses, never both. If Stenson Global has helped shape a decision, it will not subsequently assess that same decision independently.
Grounded in Practice
More than 25 years of leading complex operations in the private, humanitarian and development sectors, in settings where judgement, accountability and results matter.
This includes Chief Operating Officer at Penbrothers in Manila, almost 15 years with the International Organization for Migration in Europe, Africa and Southeast Asia, and career coaching for the Asian Development Bank.
ICF Professional Certified Coach; MIT Professional Education, Applied Agentic AI (2026).
Is a significant AI decision coming to your board?
If your organization is preparing a significant AI commitment and wants an independent view of whether the evidence supports going ahead, I welcome a confidential first conversation.
We can talk through the decision, the evidence available, and whether an Independent Decision Assessment is the right step.